Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to maintain her anonymity when she reported concerns about a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) where she lived. We found there was no fault by the Council in this respect. However, we found the Council could have followed up an application for a HMO licence sooner, which was fault. However, we did not find this delay caused injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to act on an agreement to maintain her anonymity when she reported issues at a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) she lives in. She also complained the Council failed to properly investigate her reports and that Officers did not follow up on the landlady’s statement that a licence application was in progress.
2. Ms X says, as a result of the anonymity issue and the way the Council dealt with the matter she was subjected to verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation from her landlady which affected her wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider the actions of landladies.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Ms X and considered the information she provided and the complaint she made. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Ms X called the Council at the end of October 2019 to report disrepair issues at a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) she lived in. She said she would have serious concerns about her landlady knowing it was her who made the call, and she asked the Council to ensure she remained anonymous. Ms X says the call handler stated an officer could either make an unannounced visit or notify the landlady and arrange a visit. Ms X asked if the officer could make an unannounced visit, and, if possible, not disclose the specific details of the repair issues she reported.
9. The Council’s notes of Ms X’s call to the Council are relatively brief and there is no recording of the telephone call. The notes make it clear that the call was received anonymously, referring to the caller as “anon”. They also record the issues raised. These related to some specific repairs at the property, the suitability of fire exits and whether all properties owned by Ms X’s landlady were being used as HMOs.
10. The details of the call were passed to Officer A to deal with. Officer A emailed the landlady. He provided anonymous details of the report ahead of a visit already arranged for December. Officer A did not disclose Ms X’s identity, but he included the anonymised note of the issues Mrs X raised.
11. Ms X says on the same morning she made the report in October, the landlady called a meeting of all the tenants. She stated everyone should hear what Ms X had done and set out the report that had been made. When Ms X saw her landlady, the landlady explained that Officer A had contacted her to say one of her tenants had reported repair issues. The landlady stated she knew it was Ms X because of the specific issues reported. Ms X says the landlady and her husband shouted and swore at her and told her to leave if she was not happy. Ms X was concerned she may end up being assaulted. Ms X told them she just wanted the issues to be resolved.
12. On 1 November the landlady emailed Officer A to state she knew exactly who made the report because that person had raised one of the repair issues with her already.
13. Officer A carried out an inspection visit on 5 December 2019. Officer A noted that an HMO licence was not displayed but the landlady stated an application was in progress. Later that day the officer followed up the visit with an email stating that the carbon monoxide detectors in two of the landlady’s properties needed batteries. The email asked the landlady to confirm when this was actioned and reminded them that the property must comply with the Housing Act and Houses in Multiple Occupation regulations.
14. On 17 April 2020 Officer A followed up for confirmation the landlady had taken the action he requested. The landlady had three properties. He referred to two of them which had five tenants at inspection. This made them licensable. He asked for confirmation of the occupancy of the two properties now and stated licence documentation would be sent out.
15. In response, the landlady stated she presumed as a result of the officer’s email that her previous licence applications had not been found. The Council had no record of receiving earlier licence forms. Officer A confirmed the properties would need licenses and arranged to send forms. Officer A’s email did not refer to the third HMO Ms X was living in. However, at the time of the inspection, his notes stated it too had five occupants.
16. On 4 May 2020 another housing officer contacted Officer A highlighting contact from Ms X about housing disrepair. Officer A explained the inspection from December 2019 found the property was habitable.
17. On 4 May Officer A asked a colleague to send the landlady a licence application for the HMO Ms X lived in.
18. On 11 May 2020 Ms X formally complained about what had happened in late 2019. In addition to the Council’s actions identifying her she raised concerns about the way the Council carried out the inspection at the property. Ms X questioned why the Council found there were five bedrooms at the property as there were six. She also questioned whether the fire escape route was safe and she commented about the need for a license for the property.
19. The Council stated in response to the complaint that the officer had not disclosed Ms X’s name to the landlady, but had discussed the issues she reported. They stated when repair issues were raised, the Council had a duty to follow them up to ensure the HMO was safe.
20. The Council accepted that when Ms X reported the issues, and asked to remain anonymous, the officer who took the call should have explained that while her name would not be disclosed, it would be necessary to disclose the repairs issues reported. The Council apologised for not making this clear to Ms X and stated they would ensure it was made clear to tenants making such reports in future. The Council also commented on the specific issues Ms X raised. The Council noted the property had six bedrooms and it responded to Ms X’s concern about the fire escape. It stated there was a protected means of escape to the front of the property that all tenants had access to.
21. In June, the officer sent a robust chaser email to the landlady seeking the licence applications required. The Council received the completed HMO licence applications on 29 June.
22. On 30 June the Council received information from the fire service following an inspection they carried out at the property. They followed this up with the landlady, asking them to comment within 28 days. The landlady responded two weeks later to explain that action had been taken where necessary and invited the Council to inspect this if they needed to.
23. In October 2020 Ms X raised some further repair concerns with the Council. The Council visited and responded to these concerns in writing. It set out several issues and asked the landlady to take action within 28 days. This was followed up by the Council in November.
24. The Council issued a licence to Ms X’s landlady in October 2020. This came into force from November 2020.

Was there fault by the Council

25. The Council accepted there was some learning from the complaint Ms X made; It acknowledged that it should have made clearer to her when she made her report that the details of the disrepair would need to be made known to the landlady in order to investigate them. For not making this clearer it offered an apology to Ms X. I agree that the Council could have made the situation clearer at the outset. But, overall I do not consider the Council’s handling of Ms X’s report constituted fault. This is in part because the Council has a duty to follow up on reports of disrepair to HMOs to ensure accommodation is suitable for occupation. I also took into account that the Council had not identified Ms X, rather, the landlady had concluded the report was made by her because she had raised some of the issues with the landlady previously. So, there was no actual breach of identity by the Council.
26. I recognise Ms X’s comments about her landlady’s actions and that she was caused distress as a result. However, our role is to consider the Council’s actions. I understand Ms X disagrees with how Officer A investigated the reports she made. However, the cause of the distress was her landlady’s behaviour.
27. The Council acknowledges that its December inspection report should have recorded there were six bedrooms at the HMO Ms X lived at, not five. However, a licence was required whether there were five or six rooms. So, this was not material.
28. There was some delay following up a licence application for the HMOs. The inspection took place in late December 2019. The licence application was followed up in late April/early May. The Council could have checked its records for the application the landlady stated she had submitted and followed up a licence application sooner when it did not find this. The delay here was fault. This may have been, in part, affected by the start of the lockdown for the COVD-19 pandemic in March 2020.
29. Although there was some delay, I am satisfied the Council did not ignore the issue from April 2020. It did then follow up to ensure licence applications were made. A licence was issued subsequently. Although there was fault, and this delay was avoidable, I found this did not cause injustice to Ms X.
30. I note Ms X’s query about the suitability of the method of escape in the event of fire. However, the Council considered it was suitable for all tenants to use. I have not seen any fault in the way the Council considered this issue. I also note that at a subsequent visit by the fire service, they did not question the suitability of the fire escape.
31. I found there was some fault by the Council, in that it could have followed up the licence application sooner. However, I did not find this caused any injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There was fault by the Council. However, the fault caused no injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman